This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 325 | Archive 326 | Archive 327 | Archive 328 | Archive 329 | Archive 330 | → | Archive 335 |
This is more about the reliability of CNN/MSNBC/Fox News when discussing the area of politics. From what I have seen, these sources do a terrible job at reporting neutral information in the field of politics. There are only a few news programs, the rest is strongly opinionated journalism/propaganda. Anyone agree? Aasim ( talk) 23:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will – by definition – be in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy.— Bagumba ( talk) 05:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
So I asked this earlier and was redirected here. For the article I'm currently writing I had several sources but was advised to get more so my question is some of the websites I have found are not on the reliable source list as reliable or unreliable such as Gematsu,Dual Shockers,and Nintendo life so can I use these
P.S. Thank you for your time and if this question gets answered I have other sources to ask about as well
Vessel of Domination (
talk) 20:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This request for comment has elapsed, and can be closed. Please remove this template while closing. |
Is Screen Rant a reliable source, a marginally reliable source, an unreliable source, or should it be deprecated? Lazman321 ( talk) 15:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Pick an option below and explain your reasons why:
There is concern that historically, it was not necessarily as reliable as it is today."), but otherwise the source as it currently is fits into the "generally reliable" section, with the relevant caveat of WP:DUE per its focus on niche topics. JaventheAldericky ( talk) 19:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
"What is "HotCars Sites" in ScreenRant Terms?That refers to HotCars.com, which is also owned by Valnet (link is here) and which also has a similar webpage design.
"I am unimpressed by " Infotainment" label in the Infobox"Uhm, that would be the work of a Wikipedia editor who decided that Screen Rant should be labelled as infotainment there. Screen Rant does not describe itself as producing infotainment.
"the journalistic (porn) background of Valnet operators Stephane Manos and Ouissam Youssef"Unfortunately, I fail to see the logic/reasoning in how the background of Valnet affects the reliability of Screen Rant. I note that (as per Historyday01) many reliable sources (The New York Times, HuffPost, CNET et al.) cite Screen Rant in their own articles.
"the "sources may not be reliable" tag on Screen Rant article"That notice is for Screen Rant's Wikipedia article page, not Screen Rant's website itself.
"the fact that 2 of 5 articles I semi-randomly clicked were sourced to other sites"That is a common practice among news organisations: to reproduce and report an article made by another news organisation. It does not mean that Screen Rant is unreliable for reproducing articles made by other sources.
Re Porn: "Stuff" flows downhill from owners to management to writersCould you elaborate on what do you mean by "Stuff"? It doesn't suggest anything with regards to the reliability of Screen Rant.
HuffPo isn't a stellar examplePer HuffPost's RSP entry ( RSP entry), HuffPost is reliable for non-political topics, and entertainment is (mostly) non-political.
Copying articles: Does the NY Times copy articles from Screen Rant?No, what I meant was that other sources (such as NY Times) cite Screen Rant in their own reporting. It is common practice for newspapers to cite the sources that they are using, but do not own (for example, NY Times cites Screen Rant for information reported by Screen Rant). The NY Times cites information from external sources (i.e Screen Rant) if they think that the external source they are using meets their editorial standards to warrant inclusion into their articles, otherwise they wouldn't include it into their articles in the first place. JaventheAldericky ( talk) 20:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
indicating we should consider it reliable as they have done. As such my vote would be Option 1. Sean Stephens ( talk) 03:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
The poster is supposed to give their own opinion on the matter, preferably with some evidence, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 01:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Why is this under discussion? -- Hipal ( talk) 17:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
There's a dispute on Sword of the Spirit about whether https://swordofthespirit.net/about-us/ is a reliable source for the number of members and branches of Sword of the Spirit. Specifically, I added the information here:
and it was reverted here:
The website is the official website for Sword of the Spirit, so I think under WP:ABOUTSELF it is a reliable source for this simple claim. Another editor believes it is unreliable because those membership numbers are an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. We would appreciate help with figuring out whether the source is reliable for this specific claim.
(short) discussion on talk page here:
Sudonymous ( talk) 22:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
This post is not in relation to any particular incident or discussion, but nonetheless I think it is important to discuss the topic. Poland's current rulers have been politicising (or "polonising" in their words) many media platforms in the country, following the Hungarian model. Each of these individual articles have reliable sources pointing out the issues with each of them individually. However, with the ramping up of the rhetoric and the aggressive takeovers, as shown by the takeover of Polska Press (many regional newspapers and websites included, such as Nasze Miasto, frequently quoted) by state-run Orlen, maybe it would be sensible to start thinking about a more holistic approach, such as done in the case of Russian government-owned media platforms.
The list is in-exhaustive but in particular I have in mind:
Abcmaxx ( talk) 01:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
References
Poland's legislative elections laid bare the extent to which the ruling Law and Justice party had politically captured the state media, whose taxpayer-funded broadcasts leading up to the voting amounted to partisan propaganda.
As a result, news currently delivered by public service television 'is no longer pluralist, objective and independent' and that the political context in the country has turned the public broadcaster into a propaganda tool for the ruling party
Partisan discourse and hate speech are still the rule within state-owned media, which have been transformed into government propaganda mouthpieces. Their new directors tolerate neither opposition nor neutrality from employees and fire those who refuse to comply.
In January 2016, shortly after the PiS won parliamentary elections, Kurski was named head of TVP. Under his leadership, the broadcaster has become a propaganda channel for the government. TVP defames opposition politicians and critical judges. Its manipulative chyrons are infamous and have served as the inspiration for countless memes on the internet. For the majority of people in Poland, TVP has taken things too far. According to a new poll from market research institute Ipsos, 51.6% of Poles believe that TVP is not fulfilling its mandate.
The election campaign before the next election won by PiS in October 2019 showed particularly clearly how public media became the property of the ruling party and practiced propaganda typical of authoritarian states instead of public debate.
Government control over TVP contributes to public service media being a tool for propaganda and politics...
Over the last few years, Poland's public television broadcaster TVP and radio broadcasters have been put squarely under PiS control – and even insiders admit they have been transformed into hardline government mouthpieces. This unprecedented move has been condemned by various international organisations, including the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Reporters Without Borders, and the Council of Europe, which called TVP "a propaganda channel for the ruling party".
... according to a programme on national broadcaster TVP's news channel, the [opposition] protesters [demonstrating for judicial independence] had a secret agenda guided by a hostile foreign power. The scenes on the street, it said, were a "street revolt to bring Islamic immigrants to Poland" and backed by EU leaders as revenge for the refusal of PiS to accept migrants under a European relocation scheme. Another programme on the channel, part of a network funded by a mix of TV licence revenues and advertising, described opponents as "defenders of paedophiles and alimony-dodgers".
So for those not aware it is a little more complicated as the ruling party is blurring the lines between government-owned and government-funded and placing their own people in private companies which are indirectly funded from state money through a complicated network of organisations, assiciations, trusts, charities and shell companies.
In essence there are 3 types here:
Nothing I have said here isn't widespread public knowledge or controversial that isn't reliably sourced on those articles, and I am trying to remain as neutral as possible. However the big issue is that anyone pointing those obvious flaws in lack of transparency, lack of editorial scrutiny, or even obvious falsehoods is labelled a "left-wing nutcase" and "enemy of the state" by their supporters. I guess a similar issue has come up with Daily Mail and RT in the past. Abcmaxx ( talk) 14:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@ User:Tayi Arajakate: understood. Logistically what is the best way to go about this? Create several topics on here (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard) and put notification templates on the pages of the outlets affected? Can this be done as a subsection of this discussion? It is all interlinked but this may be quite a big overall task and will be requiring a lot of cross-referencing. The reason I say this is because behind a lot of these outlets the same people, organisations, foundations etc. are behind them. I do not want to start a legitimate discussion only for the comments to be "please redirect/rephrase/move to xyz" and get nowhere as a result. Abcmaxx ( talk) 14:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
As discussed, please see the following discussions:
Abcmaxx ( talk) 00:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Ouṃkāra ( talk) 04:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
"the practise continued for centuries till the Buddhists were massacred and the temple had been seized"
Ouṃkāra ( talk) 11:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media
niezalezna.pl is a right-wing populist news portal, claiming to be independent and "pro-Polish".
The funding structure actually shows this portal to not independent as it claims to be. The
Lech Kaczyński Institute owns 100% of Srebrna Ltd. Srebrna Ltd. in turn owns 30.4% of niezalezna.pl. The other 48.6% is owned by Tomasz Sakiewicz, a far-right pro-government conspiracy theorist (who also owns
Gazeta Polska and TV Republika) who has the support and funding from the
ruling party, and he has a vested financial and political interest to continue the line and rhetoric he is pursuing.
Abcmaxx (
talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Instytut im. Lecha Kaczyńskiego is a institute in honour of Smoleńsk disaster: article. Well, given Poland's reputation for monopolising the media and cherry-picking news and journalists, it does have a big difference. Firstly, it claims to be independent, and is not officially state-run, even though its structure clearly states otherwise. Also, how can fact-checking and editorial scrutiny can be applied when it is in the hands of one or two people well-known to have tendencies bordering on authoritarian. It's basically siphoning public funds. Abcmaxx ( talk) 01:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
*Unreliable. Closely connected to
Gazeta Polska.
"The image of the sticker was censored by Instagram as hate speech, according to Tomasz Sakiewicz, the editor in chief of Gazeta Polska. In the monthly Niezalezna, another paper connected to Gazeta Polska, Sakiewicz was quoted saying that “censorship was typical of Nazism, imposing ideology, too,” then connected the LGBTQ rights movement to Ernst Röhm, a gay Nazi militia leader, who — along with other gay Nazis — was murdered in the 1934 purge known as the Night of the Long Knives.", NBC is one of many troublesome aspects.--
Bob not snob (
talk) 12:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC) (sock banned by ArbCom -
GizzyCatBella
🍁 02:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC))
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media.
Although a supposedly private initiative, Do Rzeczy is a staunchly pro-government mouthpiece propped up by public money through a complex network of government-friendly institutes. The magazine seemingly looks for shock-value and to smear political opponents only. Its sales figures are notoriously low but seemingly never to be out of money, and has a fake rivalry with Sieci witht he intention of crowding out non-government friendly media. It was initially founded by disgruntled Rzeczpospolita (later split to Uważam Rze who split again) journalists who deemed the paper not right-wing enough (even though Rzeczpospolita has been traditionally centre-right and Law and Justice-friendly). Abcmaxx ( talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Well I was hoping not to copy-paste from the articles themselves, but how can it have any editoral scrutiny when Paweł Lisicki has near total-control? Abcmaxx ( talk) 01:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
*Unreliable. It is now a government mouthpiece, and had a hard line eurosceptic stance years prior. For example,
Anne Applebaum has
describes it: "after Law and Justice won that year, I was featured on the covers of two pro-regime magazines, wSieci and Do Rzeczy—former friends of ours work at both—as the clandestine Jewish coordinator of the international press and the secret director of its negative coverage of Poland. Similar stories have appeared on Telewizja Polska’s evening news."--
Bob not snob (
talk) 12:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC) (sock banned by ArbCom -
GizzyCatBella
🍁 02:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC))
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media.
Although a supposedly private initiative, Sieci is a staunchly pro-government mouthpiece propped up by public money through a complex network of government-friendly institutes. The magazine seemingly looks for shock-value and to smear political opponents only. Its sales figures are notoriously low but seemingly never to be out of money. It only takes one look at the sheer amount of court cases against them, their frequency and what they are for, and it makes The Daily Mail look innocent and left-wing by comparison.
The magazine has a website promoting the magazine, but it runs the portal "wpolityce.pl" to compete with the likes of interia.pl and onet.pl for online content, but it is the online version of the magazine. They also run the internet TV "wPolsce.pl".
It has the following topic-specific domains too, but they often redirect to the main site:
The portal wpolityce.pl specifically has been described as junk news by various outlets.
The franchise is firstly not independent because of its funding structure. Grzegorz Bierecki ( pl), a controversial Law and Justice member, and one of the richest politicians around, created and ran the infamous "Stefczyk's SKOK Bank". When the media started to uncover the inaccuracies and scandals within the bank he started a mass litigation campaign against the media; he emphatically lost all of them in the courts. So he set up an eponymous institute and a limited company (Apella S.A.) which own 23% and 69% respectively of this Sieci/wpolityce.pl franchise. Abcmaxx ( talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Well it's all in here Sieci#Controversies Abcmaxx ( talk) 01:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Also I would never say what you you should deem reliable or not, that's the point of starting the discussion. I saw a pattern emerge amongst the media, made a request, was asked to split it so I did. I am not doing this as some large political point or to ban a whole host of media outlets. But those were clear ones which do not stand up to any editorial scrutiny. In the US they may fund media one way or another, but they do not run it from public funds, using shell companies, and then try and claim they are independent when they are clearly not. FYI there are right-wing outlets that are reliable, Rzeczpospolita and Uważam Rze for example, which do stand up to editorial scrutiny and independence. Abcmaxx ( talk) 01:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
*Unreliable. The issues are all listed in
the Controversies section in the Sieci article, for instance spreading
COVID conspiracy theories.--
Bob not snob (
talk) 12:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC) (sock banned by ArbCom -
GizzyCatBella
🍁 02:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC))
Questions: (1) Is an hour-long 1981 interview of artist
Judy Chicago
[12] a
verifiable and
reliable source for the statement, Sexism and gender discrimination have long been factors in the
visual arts and the
art world, inflected by cultural
taboos and the
sexual division of labor. This affects both occupation and opportunities available to women and public portrayals of women's roles, and is further intensified and complicated by the intertwingling of the
political culture of the United States, where
universal women's suffrage was not achieved until the
twentieth century.
? (2) Is a long quote of Judy Chicago (which follows)
WP:DUE for
Gender inequality in the United States#Occupational segregation by gender?
My answers: 1. No. An interview from 40 years ago with a single artist where she gives her point of view is not remotely a reliable source for such broad claims about opportunities for women in the present and tying in US political culture in general, even bringing up women's suffrage. The topic should instead be sourced to the expert academic literature on this topic in fields such as sociology. Editors also should not be expected to listen to an hour-long interview to verify anything. 2. No. A single artist's lengthy quote is not due and interpretations of art don't have to do with occupational segregation; the academic literature should be consulted instead.
Further context: The editor Struthious Bandersnatch insists [13] [14] on including this material. My response to their last edit summary is that they are personalizing the dispute by making it about my supposed beliefs (my actual beliefs are inclined to agree with the text being added; my concerns are RS and DUE related [15]), that they are reversing the WP:BURDEN of sourcing, and that their accusation of WP:TE on my part does not apply because the material is not reliably sourced. I also believe that this editor has been around long enough [16] to know better than this sort of behavior and should be informed of what is proper. Because of how this editor is singling me out, and based on past experience with them, I strongly desire broad input on this matter. Crossroads -talk- 04:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
inclined to agree with, you place a GamerGate DS alert on my talk page (the instructions for which say, by the way,
Alerts are a neutral courtesy; never use them to intimidate, coerce, or shame another editor.) and you want to start a noticeboard discussion over a single interview from a single source, skipping even any talk page discussion?Note that (as a fourth alternative in addition to what I proposed in my reverting edit summary, that you present contradicting evidence if you believe it exists) you could also have simply altered the text of the paragraph before the quote if you find any portion of it objectionable; it does appear you want to delete pertinent, reliably sourced content wholesale to which you've voiced no styling objections, as I said. (Unless the implication that politics and art aren't related is a styling objection?) -- ‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 05:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.An artist's recorded personal views are not fact-checked nor do they have a reputation for accuracy.
If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in topics such as history, medicine, and science.This topic is covered by social science and absolutely has voluminous academic literature available to it. No idea what you mean by "styling objections". Note too that your edit warring your material in is contrary to WP:ONUS. Crossroads -talk- 05:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media
The magazine Najwyższy Czas! is a fringe right-wing Polish media outlet, linked to far-right and right-wing populist movements, attracting exclusively those, quite probably solely to further their cause. Abcmaxx ( talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
*Unreliable. It is a "
far-right-leaning Polish tabloid". The company running this has also setup fake websites, copying text from real news (like France24) but changing some details to modify the meaning completely: "In reality, articles were rewritten with different titles, unproven or false details to modify completely the meaning of some stories, and therefore to spread disinformation".--
Bob not snob (
talk) 12:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC) (sock banned by ArbCom -
GizzyCatBella
🍁 02:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC))
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media
Gazeta Polska, a newspaper, and TV Republika, are ran by Tomasz Sakiewicz, a far-right pro-government conspiracy theorist (who also owns
Gazeta Polska and TV Republika) who has the support and funding from the
ruling party, and he has a vested financial and political interest to continue the line and rhetoric he is pursuing.
Abcmaxx (
talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Evidence points that I am correct. 1 2 3 4 Abcmaxx ( talk) 01:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
*Unreliable.
"The image of the sticker was censored by Instagram as hate speech, according to Tomasz Sakiewicz, the editor in chief of Gazeta Polska. In the monthly Niezalezna, another paper connected to Gazeta Polska, Sakiewicz was quoted saying that “censorship was typical of Nazism, imposing ideology, too,” then connected the LGBTQ rights movement to Ernst Röhm, a gay Nazi militia leader, who — along with other gay Nazis — was murdered in the 1934 purge known as the Night of the Long Knives.", NBC is one of many troublesome aspects.--
Bob not snob (
talk) 12:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC) (sock banned by ArbCom -
GizzyCatBella
🍁 02:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC))
Please see recent edits by User:Cladeal832 - I do not believe the new source mentions the films they are referring to via the source. https://imgur.com/a/8Gqt7Bx I have attempted to provide alternative sources and archived versions of the previous source, but the editor does not seem receptive to input. I would like additional opinions on the sourcing. Thank you. DrGvago ( talk) 23:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I am trying to edit the article to show 150 million as maximum estimate for Mass killings under communist regimes by providing The following peer reviewed scholarly sources https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C28&q=The+Russian+GULAG+Understanding+the+Dangers+of+Marxism+Combined+With+Totalitarianism&btnG= ( https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1350&context=honors) https://www.jstor.org/stable/24563310?seq=1 even a third and fourth backup source https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/disaster-red-hundredth-anniversary-russian-socialist-revolution/ https://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/1985/0606/ecomm.html Even if necessary this fifth source from harvard says 162 million communism deaths between mao and stalin. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/4/29/predatory-politics-what-was-the-greatest/
In the policies below it is stated non neutral sources are allowed its simply the editing such as sentence phrasing in the article that must be neutral. The article has both points of view because it has a minimim estimate AND a maximum estimate. My edit is simply a number. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutrality_of_sources https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_means_neutral_editing,_not_neutral_content In fact look what it says here under achieving neutrality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view it says "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." And here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources it says "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Again the article shows both point of views as minimum and maximum estimates.
The other users have been violating the above policies by deleting my edits simply because they view my sources as biased.
It was discussed here /info/en/?search=Talk:List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll And here /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll_discussion
The volunteer in the dispute resolution noticeboard refused to make a decision to enforce the policies on sources. Danielbr11 ( talk) 13:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
FDW777 can you tell me how it being a christian university allows it to be unreliable when policy states: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view it says "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." And here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources it says "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject" and can you read the other sources. Danielbr11 ( talk) 13:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorateare reliable under certain circumstances, except that isn't for a doctorate. It doesn't even appear to be for a masters degree, which might have got over the bar of
Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. So it's straight up unreliable, and it's not peer reviewed. FDW777 ( talk) 13:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Well the source that the liberty thesis uses for the 150 killings is Martin, Prevailing Worldviews, 182. Please tell me why i cant just use that source? Or why even when this page says 161,990,000 estimate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#:~:text=In%202017%2C%20Professor%20Stephen%20Kotkin,cruel%20projects%20of%20social%20engineering.%22 am i allowed to use that source for that figure Danielbr11 ( talk) 14:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Excuse me hemiauchenia i was told in dispute resolution that i should come here to discuss the reliability of my sources (not just one source). Danielbr11 ( talk) 14:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
MrOllie if you found that then i accept it. Now can you say why my other three sources would be unrealiable? https://www.jstor.org/stable/24563310?seq=1 https://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/1985/0606/ecomm.html https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/4/29/predatory-politics-what-was-the-greatest/ remember that the policy states you cant delete a source for being biased. Danielbr11 ( talk) 15:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Buide the majority of scholars say the death toll of European Colonization is way lower than the one on the list of 140000000 because they are mostly due to famine and there were also many countries involved. Can you please state why my last three sources above are unreliable. Once again there is a wiki article here that lists 161,990,000 estimate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#:~:text=In%202017%2C%20Professor%20Stephen%20Kotkin,cruel%20projects%20of%20social%20engineering.%22 Danielbr11 ( talk) 15:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Harvard Crimson: Opinion piece, not peer-reviewed, probably valid for authors opinion, doesn't state a total number of deaths. WP:WEIGHT would keep it out, the writer's opinion is not very important. Future of Freedom: Obviously an ideologically biased opinion piece (when you hear the word "Freedom" listen out for the splashes), but that doesn't discount it. However, it is not peer-reviewed and it is a source that does not claim to make any serious analysis of the numbers of dead, merely citing "Historians" that give a figure of 150 million. So to include it we would have to say "Professor of Ethics and Free Enterprise Leadership Richard M.Ebeling says that historians say that 150 million people were killed by Communist Regimes." That's basically just tittle-tattle, not valid to support the claim. Christian Science Monitor: Opinion piece, no workings shown, no scholars cited, from 1985. Same problem as above. Liberty university Not RS, student work. Independent Review Opinion piece, no workings shown, cites Conquest for the 150 million deaths, Conquest actually cites considerably fewer in his own work, summarised here., and his top estimate of 100 million is almost certainly an overestimate. Same problem as the others, except here we would have to say "Billy-Jo Unremarkable says historians claim 150 million deaths, citing Conquest whose own work says 85-100 million", which becomes OR to clarify the misinformation we have introduced by choosing to quote an Opinion piece. Not RS. Boynamedsue ( talk) 15:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok thank you for your input on those sources. Can you tell me why this source would be unreliable which says at the bottom communist regimes 259,432,000 as maximum estimate of deaths. https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB16A.1.GIF and why is this page allowed to show 161,990,000 killed with its source /info/en/?search=Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#Estimates Danielbr11 ( talk) 15:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The table is from here https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM where it says "For all final estimates, see the summary table in Statistics of Democide" btw this source is used throughout the List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll page Danielbr11 ( talk) 16:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
As i said he is sources throughout the List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll page and i dont think you can call him fringe if you allow 1 source to say 140000000 deaths from european colonization when most scholarly sources and historians say way less deaths because many were from disease. Danielbr11 ( talk) 16:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
(Moved from section below. Danielbr11, you already have a huge section on the reliable sources noticeboard AND two reports at the admin noticeboard AND a case at arbcom. Please let me discuss the general reliability of Rummel on RSN in a seperate section without making everything be about your edits. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Guy Macon as i said rummel is used as source throughout the List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll article and i can easily properly attribute it with appropriate disagreement by prominent critics as their is a box for notes where editors write that. As i have also said before, the article is neutral with both point of views because it has a space for minimum and maximum estimates. I am using the maximum estimate while anyone can put a mimimum estimate with its own source! I am not using any 400 million figure which is the total democide estimate for ALL GOVERNMENTS (not communism)- i am only the 259,432,000 figure for communist regimes at the bottom here https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB16A.1.GIF Danielbr11 ( talk) 16:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Rummel is reliable and one cannot delete a source simply for bias. While they debate Rummel below, i found another source with a neutral reliable publisher: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Chile_the_Crime_of_Resistance/K3d-AAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=150%20million Danielbr11 ( talk) 20:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The problem with your analysis is that in the List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll article, european colonization and genocide of indigenous americans, which was done by many different countries and most deaths were due to disease, gets about 140000000 deaths from 1 source. MOST scholars say its way lower even on the european colonization and genocide of indgenous articles themselves because disease takes many of the deaths. So 140000000 is a minority view but you include it on the list.. why? because there is a MINIMUM estimate space for the opposing view. Rummel is used a source on all the wiki articles that talk about mass killings under communism, mao, stalin, etc. Furthurmore rummel is not far off because some reputable sources have estimated stalins deaths at 60 million and maos at 70 million Danielbr11 ( talk) 20:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Can somebody tell me if this neutral reliable publisher source Is reliable https://www.google.com/books/edition/Chile_the_Crime_of_Resistance/K3d-AAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=150%20million Danielbr11 ( talk) 04:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
This source is reliable and meets the criteria, so i am free to use it in my edit to the list without others deleting it? Danielbr11 ( talk) 14:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
So you say "Rudolph Rummel is reliable with attribution in the following areas: "Democide (intentional murder by a government)" but that hes "not a historian. Rummel made little or no attempt to keep his numbers updated as new information became available and stated that his numbers would support his theories even if they were ten times smaller or ten times larger." so "Thus Rummel should not be used as a source for specific numeric death estimates outside of discussions of his theories."? If you dont allow me to source him as the maxmimum estimate NEXT to the minimum estimate for opposing views with other sources than i will take this to arbitration at this point since you guys discussed this and completed this dispute resolution. Danielbr11 ( talk) 15:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I am being civil about it without personal attacks which is what the admins were worried about. The arbitration only got declined because it had not been discussed enough yet. But now it has. There will be a reckoning because rummel is used all over including on the list article. Now you guys are gonna change your mind and remove rummel just cause of little old me? Ya arbitration will take it.. Danielbr11 ( talk) 17:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Floquenbeam arbitration does take content cases look at the Kurd case they are doing now its there only active case. They only denied my first case because they said i didnt do enough dispute resolutions yet because it has to be a long standing issue. Do you understand whats being done here? They are blocking me from using rummel as a source WHEN he is used all throughout the article and many other articles. Danielbr11 ( talk) 20:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Because i never made it about the rummel source but now it will be because below as you can see, even though rummel has been everywhere on wiki for a long time, these editors have stated that they never felt solid about him and that maybe he should be purged. Danielbr11 ( talk) 20:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Slywriter its indeed sad that you guys have obsessed all this time in preventing my communism edit after i provided so many sources several of which were reliable or peer reviewed YET you all have given no scrutiny to the absurd highest estimate of European Colonization. The overwhelming majority of scholarly sources say the death toll (especially due to disease) is way lower yet you allow 1 source that goes against all those? Fortunately even universities tell people not to trust or use wikipedia. When people type in google "what event killed the most"- every other website and source other than wiki says ww2 by a long shot while european colonization is way down the list. Danielbr11 ( talk) 22:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Would " Reflective Narratives " be considered reliable sources for encyclopedia articles? Google preview-- Prisencolin ( talk) 10:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources- the main primary source in question being their own recorded experience. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Edit where used: [22]
Reliable for claims about fonts? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone know anything about this publication? It has an article--but the article is lousy, and I just redirected the founder's article ( Basil Coronakis) as a blatant piece of spam for a person whose notability is unproven. I cannot find any reliable information on or assessment of the publication; I became interested in it because of this article, an interview with Stanley Clarke (a great bass player) which essentially promotes Scientology. That interview is linked with this outfit (with a [ https://faithandfreedomsummit.eu/steering-committee Scientologist at the head), and if you look through the history of the Coronakis article you'll see that Coronakis is the (self-)publisher of a Deep State EU conspiracy book.
So I have a few interests here. I already think that New Europe is a partisan rag of a paper, but I'm wondering if it's Scientology or not. I'd like our article to either be AfDed or improved to where it actually verifiably says something about the paper. I know some of you know the media business much better than I do, and I'd appreciate any help. Thanks. Drmies ( talk) 15:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi. What are the thoughts for the reliability of Sweety High, specifically this. I'd like to use the content in this interview on YaYa Gosselin, specifically "Pedro and I were shooting the breakfast scene and all of a sudden Robert says, "YaYa, happy birthday!" And I said, "Huh? My birthday isn't till January!' In walked Taylor Dooley in her Lavagirl hair and all. I was so shocked I walked backwards into a wall. It was an amazing moment!", but I'm not sure if the source is reliable enough. Any thoughts? Thanks. Pamzeis ( talk) 14:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Do you believe that these sources [25], [26] are reliable to be added in the University of the People article regarding the institution's collaborations? Weatherextremes ( talk) 19:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
Is this source reliable for the Antisemitism in Poland topic area?
Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions. I am not at all clear that Glaukopis can be considered a "high quality source", or that the foundation behind it is a "reputable institution". The fact that Glaukopis has been criticized for its right-leaning publications; that some of the people behind it - like Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, Jan Żaryn and the non-existent "Mark Paul" - are either associated with the far right or have been criticized for spreading antisemitic myths; that they actually publish someone by their pseudonym, which goes against scientific transparency; and that, at least from my experience, there's a lot of cross-referencing in the above's publications, suggest that this is not the case. François Robere ( talk) 17:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
*Is this a joke? One couldn't think of a less reliable source. Not reliable This publication is about rehabilitating the NSZ and the national camp. It has an awful reputation, and is peer reviewed in the same sense
Mankind Quarterly is peer reviewed, it is peer reviewed by highly suspect individuals. Nobody of note cites this trash. Over at
their library section they push trash like Polska dla Polaków!. Their
program committee says it all.
Kazimierz Braun is a playwright and scholar of theatre, not a historian.
Marek Jan Chodakiewicz is
famous for anti-Jewish and anti-gay views. Dr. Ryszard Tyndorf of Canada may have a PhD, but is a lawyer and activist, and is
known for his unsavory views. It only gets "better" when we head on to priest Dr. Jarosław Wąsowicz, who is the priest of extremist fans of
Lechia Gdańsk, an
ultra, whose homilies include gems like:
"We want a Christian Europe, because only by appealing to fundamental values can we defend the continent against annihilation". And then we have Jan Żaryn, a historian turned politician, who is known for his extremist dialogue, for instance claims of
disproportionate Jewish international influence,
attacks on museums for not being Catholic enough,
calls for expelling the Israeli ambassador who complained about rising antisemitism,
prosecution of Holocaust survivors, and other statements.
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45].--
Bob not snob (
talk) 18:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)(sock banned by ArbCom -
GizzyCatBella
🍁 02:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC))
:::Wrong, just like the rest of your bludgeoning here. I've been here for more than a year and have more than 500 edits. Do you confuse me with
User:Herzog von Teschen? He has less than 100 edits, and registered last September. That this obscure foundation lists a
football ultra priest is a strong warning sign.--
Bob not snob (
talk) 06:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)(sock banned by ArbCom -
GizzyCatBella
🍁 02:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC))
is peer reviewed in the same sense Mankind Quarterly is peer reviewed, it is peer reviewed by highly suspect individuals. The above references presented by buidhe make that apparent. Also, you may consider trying to restrain yourself from WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. It does not help your cause. Generalrelative ( talk) 20:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
"Glaukopis" is:
Definitely unreliable as per nomination. To say that internationally awarded investigative journalist outlet oko.press is "highly partisan" is nonsense and shows how any criticism or proof of misdeeds in the country is currently dealt with. Polish academia is still a free for all with very few checks and balances and always has been. Poland also has a long history of historical revisionism. Professorships had been awarded on basis of cronyism and nepotism in many cases, especially during the PRL-era. I suspect there are many more journals like this, one doesn't have to look much further than to see how IPN works to see this in action. Abcmaxx ( talk) 09:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
"persistence of two basic contradictory scholarly trends in the historiography of the mass murder of Polish Jews, accurately categorized by Krupa as a critical historiography and a historiography glorifying Poles’ wartime attitudes"[52]. He writes that Glaukopis is
"a publication that has arisen mainly to rehabilitate unconditionally the wartime activities of the Narodowe Siły Zbrojne (NSZ),"whose WWII newspaper argued that
" the liquidation of the Jews in the Polish territories is of great importance for future development because it frees us from a million-headed parasite."This kind of far-right, ethno-nationalist source and viewpoint has no place here. Probably worthwhile noting that Żbikowski offers examples of historians advancing these historiographical approaches: the "martyrological narrative" or something like a "Jewish-Soviet sympathy" narrative, etc. - Darouet ( talk) 16:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
promoting Polish nationalism and antisemitismis somehow a sign that
you're doing something rightso long as someone even more loony than you is also accusing you of
promoting Jewish interestsis a truly problematic epistemic criterion. You may wish to re-examine that. Generalrelative ( talk) 01:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
*Dr. Wojciech Muszyński, who is listed as
the publisher of Glaukopis is infamous for statements in which he suggest left-wing Polish politicians (
Left Together) should be dealt with in a manner similar to the
Pinochet regime with
death flights,
[53]
[54].--
Bob not snob (
talk) 12:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)(sock banned by ArbCom -
GizzyCatBella
🍁 02:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC))
Greetings all.
I need an assessment of how reliable the sources used in the article about Tomislav Vlašić are regarding the subject discussed. @ Red Rose 13:, you are invited to discuss the issue as you requested at Talk:Tomislav Vlašić. These are the sources:
Thank you. -- Governor Sheng ( talk) 04:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Not to be confused with The Washington Post, which of these best describes the reliability of The Washington Times , which is currently listed as "no consensus" at RSP? ( RSP entry)
JJP...MASTER! [talk to] JJP... master? 01:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The Washington Times has published many columns which reject the scientific consensus on climate change, [5] [6] [7] on ozone depletion, [8] and on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. [9] [10] It has drawn controversy for publishing racist content including conspiracy theories about U.S. President Barack Obama, [11] [12] supporting neo-Confederate historical revisionism, [13] [14] and promoting Islamophobia. [15]
additional considerations apply. I am still against this "deprecation" system though at the moment. -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 15:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media.
Tadeusz Rydzyk is a controversial Catholic fundamentalist and business mogul.
There's a lot to be criticised: from calling anyone who criticises him or the church a "worshipper of satan", far-right stances on LGBT rights, frequent and public controversies regarding blatant anti-Semitism, his controversial support for paedophile priests, peddling COVID-19 conspiracies, accusations of inciting hatred, peddling false claims about any politician who is any further left than right-wing populist; and that's not even touching upon the conflicts with the intellectual wing of the Catholic Church, stance on abortion and women's rights, and his very public dislike of the current Pope.
What is more concerning is the fact that he has shady financing of his endeavours through charitable organisations. He is wanted in Canada for various violations. He exerts significant power and us very cosy with the ruling Law and Justice, and has been so way before they were any significant political power, who are now repaying his support with giving him generous government grants.
His umbrella organisation concerning the media is the Lux Veritatis Foundation and has 3 main outlets:
Now the issue can also be that there are at least dozens other registered charities, foundations, organisations and limited companies as well as a bogus university as well, all in order get as many governement grants and tax breaks as possible.
In terms of reliability, they are nothing more than a vehicle for his private interests and to maintain his political prowess.
However, it is worth pointing out that Radio Maryja has a fervent and loyal fanbase, is broadcast all over the world, and has around 1%-1.5% of the radio market share in Poland, which is quite a lot given its profile. Abcmaxx ( talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
*Unreliable. Anything related to Lux Veritatis is extremist religious mumbo jumbo. For example:
"The station and Rydzyk have been known over the decades for spreading anti-Semitic and homophobic views.", CBC or
"His Radio Maryja station, which reaches millions and is often the sole source of information for many older voters in rural Poland, offers a daily diet of horror stories about a world without faith, where gay people control the political agenda, universities are corrupted by “neo-Marxists,” and the Roman Catholic Church is under mortal threat", New York Times.--
Bob not snob (
talk) 12:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC) (sock banned by ArbCom -
GizzyCatBella
🍁 02:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC))
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 325 | Archive 326 | Archive 327 | Archive 328 | Archive 329 | Archive 330 | → | Archive 335 |
This is more about the reliability of CNN/MSNBC/Fox News when discussing the area of politics. From what I have seen, these sources do a terrible job at reporting neutral information in the field of politics. There are only a few news programs, the rest is strongly opinionated journalism/propaganda. Anyone agree? Aasim ( talk) 23:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will – by definition – be in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy.— Bagumba ( talk) 05:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
So I asked this earlier and was redirected here. For the article I'm currently writing I had several sources but was advised to get more so my question is some of the websites I have found are not on the reliable source list as reliable or unreliable such as Gematsu,Dual Shockers,and Nintendo life so can I use these
P.S. Thank you for your time and if this question gets answered I have other sources to ask about as well
Vessel of Domination (
talk) 20:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This request for comment has elapsed, and can be closed. Please remove this template while closing. |
Is Screen Rant a reliable source, a marginally reliable source, an unreliable source, or should it be deprecated? Lazman321 ( talk) 15:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Pick an option below and explain your reasons why:
There is concern that historically, it was not necessarily as reliable as it is today."), but otherwise the source as it currently is fits into the "generally reliable" section, with the relevant caveat of WP:DUE per its focus on niche topics. JaventheAldericky ( talk) 19:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
"What is "HotCars Sites" in ScreenRant Terms?That refers to HotCars.com, which is also owned by Valnet (link is here) and which also has a similar webpage design.
"I am unimpressed by " Infotainment" label in the Infobox"Uhm, that would be the work of a Wikipedia editor who decided that Screen Rant should be labelled as infotainment there. Screen Rant does not describe itself as producing infotainment.
"the journalistic (porn) background of Valnet operators Stephane Manos and Ouissam Youssef"Unfortunately, I fail to see the logic/reasoning in how the background of Valnet affects the reliability of Screen Rant. I note that (as per Historyday01) many reliable sources (The New York Times, HuffPost, CNET et al.) cite Screen Rant in their own articles.
"the "sources may not be reliable" tag on Screen Rant article"That notice is for Screen Rant's Wikipedia article page, not Screen Rant's website itself.
"the fact that 2 of 5 articles I semi-randomly clicked were sourced to other sites"That is a common practice among news organisations: to reproduce and report an article made by another news organisation. It does not mean that Screen Rant is unreliable for reproducing articles made by other sources.
Re Porn: "Stuff" flows downhill from owners to management to writersCould you elaborate on what do you mean by "Stuff"? It doesn't suggest anything with regards to the reliability of Screen Rant.
HuffPo isn't a stellar examplePer HuffPost's RSP entry ( RSP entry), HuffPost is reliable for non-political topics, and entertainment is (mostly) non-political.
Copying articles: Does the NY Times copy articles from Screen Rant?No, what I meant was that other sources (such as NY Times) cite Screen Rant in their own reporting. It is common practice for newspapers to cite the sources that they are using, but do not own (for example, NY Times cites Screen Rant for information reported by Screen Rant). The NY Times cites information from external sources (i.e Screen Rant) if they think that the external source they are using meets their editorial standards to warrant inclusion into their articles, otherwise they wouldn't include it into their articles in the first place. JaventheAldericky ( talk) 20:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
indicating we should consider it reliable as they have done. As such my vote would be Option 1. Sean Stephens ( talk) 03:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
The poster is supposed to give their own opinion on the matter, preferably with some evidence, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 01:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Why is this under discussion? -- Hipal ( talk) 17:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
There's a dispute on Sword of the Spirit about whether https://swordofthespirit.net/about-us/ is a reliable source for the number of members and branches of Sword of the Spirit. Specifically, I added the information here:
and it was reverted here:
The website is the official website for Sword of the Spirit, so I think under WP:ABOUTSELF it is a reliable source for this simple claim. Another editor believes it is unreliable because those membership numbers are an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. We would appreciate help with figuring out whether the source is reliable for this specific claim.
(short) discussion on talk page here:
Sudonymous ( talk) 22:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
This post is not in relation to any particular incident or discussion, but nonetheless I think it is important to discuss the topic. Poland's current rulers have been politicising (or "polonising" in their words) many media platforms in the country, following the Hungarian model. Each of these individual articles have reliable sources pointing out the issues with each of them individually. However, with the ramping up of the rhetoric and the aggressive takeovers, as shown by the takeover of Polska Press (many regional newspapers and websites included, such as Nasze Miasto, frequently quoted) by state-run Orlen, maybe it would be sensible to start thinking about a more holistic approach, such as done in the case of Russian government-owned media platforms.
The list is in-exhaustive but in particular I have in mind:
Abcmaxx ( talk) 01:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
References
Poland's legislative elections laid bare the extent to which the ruling Law and Justice party had politically captured the state media, whose taxpayer-funded broadcasts leading up to the voting amounted to partisan propaganda.
As a result, news currently delivered by public service television 'is no longer pluralist, objective and independent' and that the political context in the country has turned the public broadcaster into a propaganda tool for the ruling party
Partisan discourse and hate speech are still the rule within state-owned media, which have been transformed into government propaganda mouthpieces. Their new directors tolerate neither opposition nor neutrality from employees and fire those who refuse to comply.
In January 2016, shortly after the PiS won parliamentary elections, Kurski was named head of TVP. Under his leadership, the broadcaster has become a propaganda channel for the government. TVP defames opposition politicians and critical judges. Its manipulative chyrons are infamous and have served as the inspiration for countless memes on the internet. For the majority of people in Poland, TVP has taken things too far. According to a new poll from market research institute Ipsos, 51.6% of Poles believe that TVP is not fulfilling its mandate.
The election campaign before the next election won by PiS in October 2019 showed particularly clearly how public media became the property of the ruling party and practiced propaganda typical of authoritarian states instead of public debate.
Government control over TVP contributes to public service media being a tool for propaganda and politics...
Over the last few years, Poland's public television broadcaster TVP and radio broadcasters have been put squarely under PiS control – and even insiders admit they have been transformed into hardline government mouthpieces. This unprecedented move has been condemned by various international organisations, including the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Reporters Without Borders, and the Council of Europe, which called TVP "a propaganda channel for the ruling party".
... according to a programme on national broadcaster TVP's news channel, the [opposition] protesters [demonstrating for judicial independence] had a secret agenda guided by a hostile foreign power. The scenes on the street, it said, were a "street revolt to bring Islamic immigrants to Poland" and backed by EU leaders as revenge for the refusal of PiS to accept migrants under a European relocation scheme. Another programme on the channel, part of a network funded by a mix of TV licence revenues and advertising, described opponents as "defenders of paedophiles and alimony-dodgers".
So for those not aware it is a little more complicated as the ruling party is blurring the lines between government-owned and government-funded and placing their own people in private companies which are indirectly funded from state money through a complicated network of organisations, assiciations, trusts, charities and shell companies.
In essence there are 3 types here:
Nothing I have said here isn't widespread public knowledge or controversial that isn't reliably sourced on those articles, and I am trying to remain as neutral as possible. However the big issue is that anyone pointing those obvious flaws in lack of transparency, lack of editorial scrutiny, or even obvious falsehoods is labelled a "left-wing nutcase" and "enemy of the state" by their supporters. I guess a similar issue has come up with Daily Mail and RT in the past. Abcmaxx ( talk) 14:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@ User:Tayi Arajakate: understood. Logistically what is the best way to go about this? Create several topics on here (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard) and put notification templates on the pages of the outlets affected? Can this be done as a subsection of this discussion? It is all interlinked but this may be quite a big overall task and will be requiring a lot of cross-referencing. The reason I say this is because behind a lot of these outlets the same people, organisations, foundations etc. are behind them. I do not want to start a legitimate discussion only for the comments to be "please redirect/rephrase/move to xyz" and get nowhere as a result. Abcmaxx ( talk) 14:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
As discussed, please see the following discussions:
Abcmaxx ( talk) 00:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Ouṃkāra ( talk) 04:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
"the practise continued for centuries till the Buddhists were massacred and the temple had been seized"
Ouṃkāra ( talk) 11:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media
niezalezna.pl is a right-wing populist news portal, claiming to be independent and "pro-Polish".
The funding structure actually shows this portal to not independent as it claims to be. The
Lech Kaczyński Institute owns 100% of Srebrna Ltd. Srebrna Ltd. in turn owns 30.4% of niezalezna.pl. The other 48.6% is owned by Tomasz Sakiewicz, a far-right pro-government conspiracy theorist (who also owns
Gazeta Polska and TV Republika) who has the support and funding from the
ruling party, and he has a vested financial and political interest to continue the line and rhetoric he is pursuing.
Abcmaxx (
talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Instytut im. Lecha Kaczyńskiego is a institute in honour of Smoleńsk disaster: article. Well, given Poland's reputation for monopolising the media and cherry-picking news and journalists, it does have a big difference. Firstly, it claims to be independent, and is not officially state-run, even though its structure clearly states otherwise. Also, how can fact-checking and editorial scrutiny can be applied when it is in the hands of one or two people well-known to have tendencies bordering on authoritarian. It's basically siphoning public funds. Abcmaxx ( talk) 01:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
*Unreliable. Closely connected to
Gazeta Polska.
"The image of the sticker was censored by Instagram as hate speech, according to Tomasz Sakiewicz, the editor in chief of Gazeta Polska. In the monthly Niezalezna, another paper connected to Gazeta Polska, Sakiewicz was quoted saying that “censorship was typical of Nazism, imposing ideology, too,” then connected the LGBTQ rights movement to Ernst Röhm, a gay Nazi militia leader, who — along with other gay Nazis — was murdered in the 1934 purge known as the Night of the Long Knives.", NBC is one of many troublesome aspects.--
Bob not snob (
talk) 12:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC) (sock banned by ArbCom -
GizzyCatBella
🍁 02:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC))
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media.
Although a supposedly private initiative, Do Rzeczy is a staunchly pro-government mouthpiece propped up by public money through a complex network of government-friendly institutes. The magazine seemingly looks for shock-value and to smear political opponents only. Its sales figures are notoriously low but seemingly never to be out of money, and has a fake rivalry with Sieci witht he intention of crowding out non-government friendly media. It was initially founded by disgruntled Rzeczpospolita (later split to Uważam Rze who split again) journalists who deemed the paper not right-wing enough (even though Rzeczpospolita has been traditionally centre-right and Law and Justice-friendly). Abcmaxx ( talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Well I was hoping not to copy-paste from the articles themselves, but how can it have any editoral scrutiny when Paweł Lisicki has near total-control? Abcmaxx ( talk) 01:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
*Unreliable. It is now a government mouthpiece, and had a hard line eurosceptic stance years prior. For example,
Anne Applebaum has
describes it: "after Law and Justice won that year, I was featured on the covers of two pro-regime magazines, wSieci and Do Rzeczy—former friends of ours work at both—as the clandestine Jewish coordinator of the international press and the secret director of its negative coverage of Poland. Similar stories have appeared on Telewizja Polska’s evening news."--
Bob not snob (
talk) 12:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC) (sock banned by ArbCom -
GizzyCatBella
🍁 02:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC))
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media.
Although a supposedly private initiative, Sieci is a staunchly pro-government mouthpiece propped up by public money through a complex network of government-friendly institutes. The magazine seemingly looks for shock-value and to smear political opponents only. Its sales figures are notoriously low but seemingly never to be out of money. It only takes one look at the sheer amount of court cases against them, their frequency and what they are for, and it makes The Daily Mail look innocent and left-wing by comparison.
The magazine has a website promoting the magazine, but it runs the portal "wpolityce.pl" to compete with the likes of interia.pl and onet.pl for online content, but it is the online version of the magazine. They also run the internet TV "wPolsce.pl".
It has the following topic-specific domains too, but they often redirect to the main site:
The portal wpolityce.pl specifically has been described as junk news by various outlets.
The franchise is firstly not independent because of its funding structure. Grzegorz Bierecki ( pl), a controversial Law and Justice member, and one of the richest politicians around, created and ran the infamous "Stefczyk's SKOK Bank". When the media started to uncover the inaccuracies and scandals within the bank he started a mass litigation campaign against the media; he emphatically lost all of them in the courts. So he set up an eponymous institute and a limited company (Apella S.A.) which own 23% and 69% respectively of this Sieci/wpolityce.pl franchise. Abcmaxx ( talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Well it's all in here Sieci#Controversies Abcmaxx ( talk) 01:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Also I would never say what you you should deem reliable or not, that's the point of starting the discussion. I saw a pattern emerge amongst the media, made a request, was asked to split it so I did. I am not doing this as some large political point or to ban a whole host of media outlets. But those were clear ones which do not stand up to any editorial scrutiny. In the US they may fund media one way or another, but they do not run it from public funds, using shell companies, and then try and claim they are independent when they are clearly not. FYI there are right-wing outlets that are reliable, Rzeczpospolita and Uważam Rze for example, which do stand up to editorial scrutiny and independence. Abcmaxx ( talk) 01:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
*Unreliable. The issues are all listed in
the Controversies section in the Sieci article, for instance spreading
COVID conspiracy theories.--
Bob not snob (
talk) 12:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC) (sock banned by ArbCom -
GizzyCatBella
🍁 02:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC))
Questions: (1) Is an hour-long 1981 interview of artist
Judy Chicago
[12] a
verifiable and
reliable source for the statement, Sexism and gender discrimination have long been factors in the
visual arts and the
art world, inflected by cultural
taboos and the
sexual division of labor. This affects both occupation and opportunities available to women and public portrayals of women's roles, and is further intensified and complicated by the intertwingling of the
political culture of the United States, where
universal women's suffrage was not achieved until the
twentieth century.
? (2) Is a long quote of Judy Chicago (which follows)
WP:DUE for
Gender inequality in the United States#Occupational segregation by gender?
My answers: 1. No. An interview from 40 years ago with a single artist where she gives her point of view is not remotely a reliable source for such broad claims about opportunities for women in the present and tying in US political culture in general, even bringing up women's suffrage. The topic should instead be sourced to the expert academic literature on this topic in fields such as sociology. Editors also should not be expected to listen to an hour-long interview to verify anything. 2. No. A single artist's lengthy quote is not due and interpretations of art don't have to do with occupational segregation; the academic literature should be consulted instead.
Further context: The editor Struthious Bandersnatch insists [13] [14] on including this material. My response to their last edit summary is that they are personalizing the dispute by making it about my supposed beliefs (my actual beliefs are inclined to agree with the text being added; my concerns are RS and DUE related [15]), that they are reversing the WP:BURDEN of sourcing, and that their accusation of WP:TE on my part does not apply because the material is not reliably sourced. I also believe that this editor has been around long enough [16] to know better than this sort of behavior and should be informed of what is proper. Because of how this editor is singling me out, and based on past experience with them, I strongly desire broad input on this matter. Crossroads -talk- 04:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
inclined to agree with, you place a GamerGate DS alert on my talk page (the instructions for which say, by the way,
Alerts are a neutral courtesy; never use them to intimidate, coerce, or shame another editor.) and you want to start a noticeboard discussion over a single interview from a single source, skipping even any talk page discussion?Note that (as a fourth alternative in addition to what I proposed in my reverting edit summary, that you present contradicting evidence if you believe it exists) you could also have simply altered the text of the paragraph before the quote if you find any portion of it objectionable; it does appear you want to delete pertinent, reliably sourced content wholesale to which you've voiced no styling objections, as I said. (Unless the implication that politics and art aren't related is a styling objection?) -- ‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 05:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.An artist's recorded personal views are not fact-checked nor do they have a reputation for accuracy.
If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in topics such as history, medicine, and science.This topic is covered by social science and absolutely has voluminous academic literature available to it. No idea what you mean by "styling objections". Note too that your edit warring your material in is contrary to WP:ONUS. Crossroads -talk- 05:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media
The magazine Najwyższy Czas! is a fringe right-wing Polish media outlet, linked to far-right and right-wing populist movements, attracting exclusively those, quite probably solely to further their cause. Abcmaxx ( talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
*Unreliable. It is a "
far-right-leaning Polish tabloid". The company running this has also setup fake websites, copying text from real news (like France24) but changing some details to modify the meaning completely: "In reality, articles were rewritten with different titles, unproven or false details to modify completely the meaning of some stories, and therefore to spread disinformation".--
Bob not snob (
talk) 12:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC) (sock banned by ArbCom -
GizzyCatBella
🍁 02:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC))
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media
Gazeta Polska, a newspaper, and TV Republika, are ran by Tomasz Sakiewicz, a far-right pro-government conspiracy theorist (who also owns
Gazeta Polska and TV Republika) who has the support and funding from the
ruling party, and he has a vested financial and political interest to continue the line and rhetoric he is pursuing.
Abcmaxx (
talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Evidence points that I am correct. 1 2 3 4 Abcmaxx ( talk) 01:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
*Unreliable.
"The image of the sticker was censored by Instagram as hate speech, according to Tomasz Sakiewicz, the editor in chief of Gazeta Polska. In the monthly Niezalezna, another paper connected to Gazeta Polska, Sakiewicz was quoted saying that “censorship was typical of Nazism, imposing ideology, too,” then connected the LGBTQ rights movement to Ernst Röhm, a gay Nazi militia leader, who — along with other gay Nazis — was murdered in the 1934 purge known as the Night of the Long Knives.", NBC is one of many troublesome aspects.--
Bob not snob (
talk) 12:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC) (sock banned by ArbCom -
GizzyCatBella
🍁 02:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC))
Please see recent edits by User:Cladeal832 - I do not believe the new source mentions the films they are referring to via the source. https://imgur.com/a/8Gqt7Bx I have attempted to provide alternative sources and archived versions of the previous source, but the editor does not seem receptive to input. I would like additional opinions on the sourcing. Thank you. DrGvago ( talk) 23:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I am trying to edit the article to show 150 million as maximum estimate for Mass killings under communist regimes by providing The following peer reviewed scholarly sources https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C28&q=The+Russian+GULAG+Understanding+the+Dangers+of+Marxism+Combined+With+Totalitarianism&btnG= ( https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1350&context=honors) https://www.jstor.org/stable/24563310?seq=1 even a third and fourth backup source https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/disaster-red-hundredth-anniversary-russian-socialist-revolution/ https://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/1985/0606/ecomm.html Even if necessary this fifth source from harvard says 162 million communism deaths between mao and stalin. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/4/29/predatory-politics-what-was-the-greatest/
In the policies below it is stated non neutral sources are allowed its simply the editing such as sentence phrasing in the article that must be neutral. The article has both points of view because it has a minimim estimate AND a maximum estimate. My edit is simply a number. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutrality_of_sources https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_means_neutral_editing,_not_neutral_content In fact look what it says here under achieving neutrality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view it says "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." And here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources it says "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Again the article shows both point of views as minimum and maximum estimates.
The other users have been violating the above policies by deleting my edits simply because they view my sources as biased.
It was discussed here /info/en/?search=Talk:List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll And here /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll_discussion
The volunteer in the dispute resolution noticeboard refused to make a decision to enforce the policies on sources. Danielbr11 ( talk) 13:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
FDW777 can you tell me how it being a christian university allows it to be unreliable when policy states: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view it says "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." And here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources it says "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject" and can you read the other sources. Danielbr11 ( talk) 13:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorateare reliable under certain circumstances, except that isn't for a doctorate. It doesn't even appear to be for a masters degree, which might have got over the bar of
Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. So it's straight up unreliable, and it's not peer reviewed. FDW777 ( talk) 13:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Well the source that the liberty thesis uses for the 150 killings is Martin, Prevailing Worldviews, 182. Please tell me why i cant just use that source? Or why even when this page says 161,990,000 estimate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#:~:text=In%202017%2C%20Professor%20Stephen%20Kotkin,cruel%20projects%20of%20social%20engineering.%22 am i allowed to use that source for that figure Danielbr11 ( talk) 14:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Excuse me hemiauchenia i was told in dispute resolution that i should come here to discuss the reliability of my sources (not just one source). Danielbr11 ( talk) 14:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
MrOllie if you found that then i accept it. Now can you say why my other three sources would be unrealiable? https://www.jstor.org/stable/24563310?seq=1 https://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/1985/0606/ecomm.html https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/4/29/predatory-politics-what-was-the-greatest/ remember that the policy states you cant delete a source for being biased. Danielbr11 ( talk) 15:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Buide the majority of scholars say the death toll of European Colonization is way lower than the one on the list of 140000000 because they are mostly due to famine and there were also many countries involved. Can you please state why my last three sources above are unreliable. Once again there is a wiki article here that lists 161,990,000 estimate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#:~:text=In%202017%2C%20Professor%20Stephen%20Kotkin,cruel%20projects%20of%20social%20engineering.%22 Danielbr11 ( talk) 15:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Harvard Crimson: Opinion piece, not peer-reviewed, probably valid for authors opinion, doesn't state a total number of deaths. WP:WEIGHT would keep it out, the writer's opinion is not very important. Future of Freedom: Obviously an ideologically biased opinion piece (when you hear the word "Freedom" listen out for the splashes), but that doesn't discount it. However, it is not peer-reviewed and it is a source that does not claim to make any serious analysis of the numbers of dead, merely citing "Historians" that give a figure of 150 million. So to include it we would have to say "Professor of Ethics and Free Enterprise Leadership Richard M.Ebeling says that historians say that 150 million people were killed by Communist Regimes." That's basically just tittle-tattle, not valid to support the claim. Christian Science Monitor: Opinion piece, no workings shown, no scholars cited, from 1985. Same problem as above. Liberty university Not RS, student work. Independent Review Opinion piece, no workings shown, cites Conquest for the 150 million deaths, Conquest actually cites considerably fewer in his own work, summarised here., and his top estimate of 100 million is almost certainly an overestimate. Same problem as the others, except here we would have to say "Billy-Jo Unremarkable says historians claim 150 million deaths, citing Conquest whose own work says 85-100 million", which becomes OR to clarify the misinformation we have introduced by choosing to quote an Opinion piece. Not RS. Boynamedsue ( talk) 15:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok thank you for your input on those sources. Can you tell me why this source would be unreliable which says at the bottom communist regimes 259,432,000 as maximum estimate of deaths. https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB16A.1.GIF and why is this page allowed to show 161,990,000 killed with its source /info/en/?search=Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#Estimates Danielbr11 ( talk) 15:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The table is from here https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM where it says "For all final estimates, see the summary table in Statistics of Democide" btw this source is used throughout the List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll page Danielbr11 ( talk) 16:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
As i said he is sources throughout the List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll page and i dont think you can call him fringe if you allow 1 source to say 140000000 deaths from european colonization when most scholarly sources and historians say way less deaths because many were from disease. Danielbr11 ( talk) 16:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
(Moved from section below. Danielbr11, you already have a huge section on the reliable sources noticeboard AND two reports at the admin noticeboard AND a case at arbcom. Please let me discuss the general reliability of Rummel on RSN in a seperate section without making everything be about your edits. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Guy Macon as i said rummel is used as source throughout the List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll article and i can easily properly attribute it with appropriate disagreement by prominent critics as their is a box for notes where editors write that. As i have also said before, the article is neutral with both point of views because it has a space for minimum and maximum estimates. I am using the maximum estimate while anyone can put a mimimum estimate with its own source! I am not using any 400 million figure which is the total democide estimate for ALL GOVERNMENTS (not communism)- i am only the 259,432,000 figure for communist regimes at the bottom here https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB16A.1.GIF Danielbr11 ( talk) 16:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Rummel is reliable and one cannot delete a source simply for bias. While they debate Rummel below, i found another source with a neutral reliable publisher: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Chile_the_Crime_of_Resistance/K3d-AAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=150%20million Danielbr11 ( talk) 20:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The problem with your analysis is that in the List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll article, european colonization and genocide of indigenous americans, which was done by many different countries and most deaths were due to disease, gets about 140000000 deaths from 1 source. MOST scholars say its way lower even on the european colonization and genocide of indgenous articles themselves because disease takes many of the deaths. So 140000000 is a minority view but you include it on the list.. why? because there is a MINIMUM estimate space for the opposing view. Rummel is used a source on all the wiki articles that talk about mass killings under communism, mao, stalin, etc. Furthurmore rummel is not far off because some reputable sources have estimated stalins deaths at 60 million and maos at 70 million Danielbr11 ( talk) 20:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Can somebody tell me if this neutral reliable publisher source Is reliable https://www.google.com/books/edition/Chile_the_Crime_of_Resistance/K3d-AAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=150%20million Danielbr11 ( talk) 04:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
This source is reliable and meets the criteria, so i am free to use it in my edit to the list without others deleting it? Danielbr11 ( talk) 14:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
So you say "Rudolph Rummel is reliable with attribution in the following areas: "Democide (intentional murder by a government)" but that hes "not a historian. Rummel made little or no attempt to keep his numbers updated as new information became available and stated that his numbers would support his theories even if they were ten times smaller or ten times larger." so "Thus Rummel should not be used as a source for specific numeric death estimates outside of discussions of his theories."? If you dont allow me to source him as the maxmimum estimate NEXT to the minimum estimate for opposing views with other sources than i will take this to arbitration at this point since you guys discussed this and completed this dispute resolution. Danielbr11 ( talk) 15:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I am being civil about it without personal attacks which is what the admins were worried about. The arbitration only got declined because it had not been discussed enough yet. But now it has. There will be a reckoning because rummel is used all over including on the list article. Now you guys are gonna change your mind and remove rummel just cause of little old me? Ya arbitration will take it.. Danielbr11 ( talk) 17:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Floquenbeam arbitration does take content cases look at the Kurd case they are doing now its there only active case. They only denied my first case because they said i didnt do enough dispute resolutions yet because it has to be a long standing issue. Do you understand whats being done here? They are blocking me from using rummel as a source WHEN he is used all throughout the article and many other articles. Danielbr11 ( talk) 20:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Because i never made it about the rummel source but now it will be because below as you can see, even though rummel has been everywhere on wiki for a long time, these editors have stated that they never felt solid about him and that maybe he should be purged. Danielbr11 ( talk) 20:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Slywriter its indeed sad that you guys have obsessed all this time in preventing my communism edit after i provided so many sources several of which were reliable or peer reviewed YET you all have given no scrutiny to the absurd highest estimate of European Colonization. The overwhelming majority of scholarly sources say the death toll (especially due to disease) is way lower yet you allow 1 source that goes against all those? Fortunately even universities tell people not to trust or use wikipedia. When people type in google "what event killed the most"- every other website and source other than wiki says ww2 by a long shot while european colonization is way down the list. Danielbr11 ( talk) 22:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Would " Reflective Narratives " be considered reliable sources for encyclopedia articles? Google preview-- Prisencolin ( talk) 10:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources- the main primary source in question being their own recorded experience. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Edit where used: [22]
Reliable for claims about fonts? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone know anything about this publication? It has an article--but the article is lousy, and I just redirected the founder's article ( Basil Coronakis) as a blatant piece of spam for a person whose notability is unproven. I cannot find any reliable information on or assessment of the publication; I became interested in it because of this article, an interview with Stanley Clarke (a great bass player) which essentially promotes Scientology. That interview is linked with this outfit (with a [ https://faithandfreedomsummit.eu/steering-committee Scientologist at the head), and if you look through the history of the Coronakis article you'll see that Coronakis is the (self-)publisher of a Deep State EU conspiracy book.
So I have a few interests here. I already think that New Europe is a partisan rag of a paper, but I'm wondering if it's Scientology or not. I'd like our article to either be AfDed or improved to where it actually verifiably says something about the paper. I know some of you know the media business much better than I do, and I'd appreciate any help. Thanks. Drmies ( talk) 15:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi. What are the thoughts for the reliability of Sweety High, specifically this. I'd like to use the content in this interview on YaYa Gosselin, specifically "Pedro and I were shooting the breakfast scene and all of a sudden Robert says, "YaYa, happy birthday!" And I said, "Huh? My birthday isn't till January!' In walked Taylor Dooley in her Lavagirl hair and all. I was so shocked I walked backwards into a wall. It was an amazing moment!", but I'm not sure if the source is reliable enough. Any thoughts? Thanks. Pamzeis ( talk) 14:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Do you believe that these sources [25], [26] are reliable to be added in the University of the People article regarding the institution's collaborations? Weatherextremes ( talk) 19:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
Is this source reliable for the Antisemitism in Poland topic area?
Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions. I am not at all clear that Glaukopis can be considered a "high quality source", or that the foundation behind it is a "reputable institution". The fact that Glaukopis has been criticized for its right-leaning publications; that some of the people behind it - like Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, Jan Żaryn and the non-existent "Mark Paul" - are either associated with the far right or have been criticized for spreading antisemitic myths; that they actually publish someone by their pseudonym, which goes against scientific transparency; and that, at least from my experience, there's a lot of cross-referencing in the above's publications, suggest that this is not the case. François Robere ( talk) 17:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
*Is this a joke? One couldn't think of a less reliable source. Not reliable This publication is about rehabilitating the NSZ and the national camp. It has an awful reputation, and is peer reviewed in the same sense
Mankind Quarterly is peer reviewed, it is peer reviewed by highly suspect individuals. Nobody of note cites this trash. Over at
their library section they push trash like Polska dla Polaków!. Their
program committee says it all.
Kazimierz Braun is a playwright and scholar of theatre, not a historian.
Marek Jan Chodakiewicz is
famous for anti-Jewish and anti-gay views. Dr. Ryszard Tyndorf of Canada may have a PhD, but is a lawyer and activist, and is
known for his unsavory views. It only gets "better" when we head on to priest Dr. Jarosław Wąsowicz, who is the priest of extremist fans of
Lechia Gdańsk, an
ultra, whose homilies include gems like:
"We want a Christian Europe, because only by appealing to fundamental values can we defend the continent against annihilation". And then we have Jan Żaryn, a historian turned politician, who is known for his extremist dialogue, for instance claims of
disproportionate Jewish international influence,
attacks on museums for not being Catholic enough,
calls for expelling the Israeli ambassador who complained about rising antisemitism,
prosecution of Holocaust survivors, and other statements.
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45].--
Bob not snob (
talk) 18:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)(sock banned by ArbCom -
GizzyCatBella
🍁 02:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC))
:::Wrong, just like the rest of your bludgeoning here. I've been here for more than a year and have more than 500 edits. Do you confuse me with
User:Herzog von Teschen? He has less than 100 edits, and registered last September. That this obscure foundation lists a
football ultra priest is a strong warning sign.--
Bob not snob (
talk) 06:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)(sock banned by ArbCom -
GizzyCatBella
🍁 02:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC))
is peer reviewed in the same sense Mankind Quarterly is peer reviewed, it is peer reviewed by highly suspect individuals. The above references presented by buidhe make that apparent. Also, you may consider trying to restrain yourself from WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. It does not help your cause. Generalrelative ( talk) 20:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
"Glaukopis" is:
Definitely unreliable as per nomination. To say that internationally awarded investigative journalist outlet oko.press is "highly partisan" is nonsense and shows how any criticism or proof of misdeeds in the country is currently dealt with. Polish academia is still a free for all with very few checks and balances and always has been. Poland also has a long history of historical revisionism. Professorships had been awarded on basis of cronyism and nepotism in many cases, especially during the PRL-era. I suspect there are many more journals like this, one doesn't have to look much further than to see how IPN works to see this in action. Abcmaxx ( talk) 09:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
"persistence of two basic contradictory scholarly trends in the historiography of the mass murder of Polish Jews, accurately categorized by Krupa as a critical historiography and a historiography glorifying Poles’ wartime attitudes"[52]. He writes that Glaukopis is
"a publication that has arisen mainly to rehabilitate unconditionally the wartime activities of the Narodowe Siły Zbrojne (NSZ),"whose WWII newspaper argued that
" the liquidation of the Jews in the Polish territories is of great importance for future development because it frees us from a million-headed parasite."This kind of far-right, ethno-nationalist source and viewpoint has no place here. Probably worthwhile noting that Żbikowski offers examples of historians advancing these historiographical approaches: the "martyrological narrative" or something like a "Jewish-Soviet sympathy" narrative, etc. - Darouet ( talk) 16:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
promoting Polish nationalism and antisemitismis somehow a sign that
you're doing something rightso long as someone even more loony than you is also accusing you of
promoting Jewish interestsis a truly problematic epistemic criterion. You may wish to re-examine that. Generalrelative ( talk) 01:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
*Dr. Wojciech Muszyński, who is listed as
the publisher of Glaukopis is infamous for statements in which he suggest left-wing Polish politicians (
Left Together) should be dealt with in a manner similar to the
Pinochet regime with
death flights,
[53]
[54].--
Bob not snob (
talk) 12:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)(sock banned by ArbCom -
GizzyCatBella
🍁 02:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC))
Greetings all.
I need an assessment of how reliable the sources used in the article about Tomislav Vlašić are regarding the subject discussed. @ Red Rose 13:, you are invited to discuss the issue as you requested at Talk:Tomislav Vlašić. These are the sources:
Thank you. -- Governor Sheng ( talk) 04:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Not to be confused with The Washington Post, which of these best describes the reliability of The Washington Times , which is currently listed as "no consensus" at RSP? ( RSP entry)
JJP...MASTER! [talk to] JJP... master? 01:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The Washington Times has published many columns which reject the scientific consensus on climate change, [5] [6] [7] on ozone depletion, [8] and on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. [9] [10] It has drawn controversy for publishing racist content including conspiracy theories about U.S. President Barack Obama, [11] [12] supporting neo-Confederate historical revisionism, [13] [14] and promoting Islamophobia. [15]
additional considerations apply. I am still against this "deprecation" system though at the moment. -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 15:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media.
Tadeusz Rydzyk is a controversial Catholic fundamentalist and business mogul.
There's a lot to be criticised: from calling anyone who criticises him or the church a "worshipper of satan", far-right stances on LGBT rights, frequent and public controversies regarding blatant anti-Semitism, his controversial support for paedophile priests, peddling COVID-19 conspiracies, accusations of inciting hatred, peddling false claims about any politician who is any further left than right-wing populist; and that's not even touching upon the conflicts with the intellectual wing of the Catholic Church, stance on abortion and women's rights, and his very public dislike of the current Pope.
What is more concerning is the fact that he has shady financing of his endeavours through charitable organisations. He is wanted in Canada for various violations. He exerts significant power and us very cosy with the ruling Law and Justice, and has been so way before they were any significant political power, who are now repaying his support with giving him generous government grants.
His umbrella organisation concerning the media is the Lux Veritatis Foundation and has 3 main outlets:
Now the issue can also be that there are at least dozens other registered charities, foundations, organisations and limited companies as well as a bogus university as well, all in order get as many governement grants and tax breaks as possible.
In terms of reliability, they are nothing more than a vehicle for his private interests and to maintain his political prowess.
However, it is worth pointing out that Radio Maryja has a fervent and loyal fanbase, is broadcast all over the world, and has around 1%-1.5% of the radio market share in Poland, which is quite a lot given its profile. Abcmaxx ( talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
*Unreliable. Anything related to Lux Veritatis is extremist religious mumbo jumbo. For example:
"The station and Rydzyk have been known over the decades for spreading anti-Semitic and homophobic views.", CBC or
"His Radio Maryja station, which reaches millions and is often the sole source of information for many older voters in rural Poland, offers a daily diet of horror stories about a world without faith, where gay people control the political agenda, universities are corrupted by “neo-Marxists,” and the Roman Catholic Church is under mortal threat", New York Times.--
Bob not snob (
talk) 12:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC) (sock banned by ArbCom -
GizzyCatBella
🍁 02:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC))